roe v. wade, march for life & the inauguration

Today is the 26th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. One year later the first March for Life was held in Washington DC, “as a collective effort of grassroots prolife Americans to assure that our state and federal laws shall protect the right to life of each human in existence at fertilization.” The March is happening today and, according to USA Today, “hundreds of thousands” of people have arrived in DC for the protest.

On Tuesday, as we were walking away from the National Mall after the presidential inauguration, we encountered 4 or 5 people holding large photos (about 5 feet high) of aborted fetuses. In the past while touring DC I have encountered war protesters holding similar photos of children killed in battle. Both sets of images are incredibly disturbing. To be honest, on Tuesday I had to look away as the images were simply too gruesome. I had a similar response to the war photos in the past.

I don’t know if today’s March for Life will include such graphic images, but I’d wonder at the purpose if it does. I suppose there are times when we must be reminded what violence (of all types) looks like. As one who is actively pursuing adoption I have heightened sympathy for any unborn child. I voted for the presidential candidate who I believed had the best shot at reducing abortions in our country (and violence of all kinds in the world). Despite these convictions, I find the types of photos we encountered on Tuesday to be completely out of line.

Can these shocking images really be expected to change a person’s position regarding abortion? Of the people holding the photos on Tuesday, only one had attracted a passerby and their exchange could be mildly described as “heated”. Not only do these images- when used for political purposes- transgress the dignity of those portrayed, they also serve to alienate the very people who should be in conversation together. The Christian posture (and many in the pro-life movement who approve the use of these kinds of photos identify as Christians) would seem to be one of engagement and conversation not of alienation or shame.

I don’t know enough about the March for Life to know if I’d ever participate, but I’m grateful for the conviction of those who are. It’s a gift to live in a country that allows such vigorous protest and debate. However, the tone of Tuesday’s inauguration was one of hopeful partnership. I wonder if there ought to be a few less marches and protests and a few more conversations over dinner with those we disagree with. Marching every year in Washington DC is commendable, but regular interaction with friends and neighbors who see the world differently may be what’s called for at this moment.

As always, I’m curious if I’m missing something. What do you make of these graphic images and other such tactics?

David Swanson

January 22, 2009

uncategorized

march for life

7 responses to “roe v. wade, march for life & the inauguration”

Randall Payleitner

January 22, 2009 at 4:14 pm

David

I think it’s certainly a matter of the demeanor in which the information is presented and that must be done in a Christ-like way (which it probably isn’t a lot of the time).

But, to be completely honest, pictures of violence that honestly capture the killing of innocent lives ought not be ignored, negated, or frowned upon simply because they are too gruesome.

Jesus, the Son of God, did not come to bring peace–but a sword (Mt. 10:34). (Now, he did come to bring love, show mercy, and save us from ourselves… but he didn’t come so there’d be peace–that’s for when he comes again.)

As Christians we can’t just exist with our heads in the sand (ignoring that which is uncomfortable for the sake of peace) when it comes to AIDS in Africa, extreme poverty, or aborting millions of babies. Right?

We ought to present the right information, in love… but still, the right information. Not a dumbed down version so that we can all sleep better at night.

What do you think?

Reply
BC

January 23, 2009 at 12:18 am

I’m not a huge fan of the giant fetus signs myself, but I guess I agree with Randall that “pictures of violence that honestly capture the killing of innocent lives ought not be negated ….”

For example, you also mentioned images of children killed in war. I’ve been watching fairly gruesome video over the last several weeks of the conflict in Gaza showing mutilated children. Disgusting, shocking, unnerving – but I don’t necessarily think that the displaying of the image of children killed in war “transgresses their dignity.” Rather it was the one who killed them that transgressed that dignity (and so much more). I guess in my thinking the same is true for fetuses. We find it distasteful and want to turn away because to abuse and murder of innocents is disgusting. Perhaps we should be made uncomfortable for a few moments.

But I agree David, displaying such signs at the inauguration (or anywhere) probably won’t stir up much dialog. It may even serve to polarize the different sides even more. Maybe, best case, it serves to dissuade someone from having an abortion, but if that is the intent then perhaps the message needs to be packaged differently and delivered in a different venue.

Reply
David

January 23, 2009 at 9:25 am

You both make an important point: images that portray the gruesome results of violent acts should not be ignored. I agree that too often we’d prefer to look away (change the channel, turn the page, etc) rather than really consider the reality of what is being portrayed.

My gripe is how these images are often used. At times when dialogue is most needed, people use these images to prove the justness of their cause rather than enter into meaningful conversation with those they are at odds with.

As a Christian I am interested in the intersection of justice and love for enemies. I’m sure the use of graphic photos could fit within these parameters, but that wasn’t my experience this past Tuesday. This is why human dignity was transgressed: these photos (and those holding them) seemed less interested in honoring the victims they portrayed than they did in making a political statement. Does that make sense?

Reply
Susan

January 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Jesus might be the only one who can get away with public statements of righteousness about white-washed tombs, moneychangers and those who hurt innocent children. He is righteous and somehow his love, his very nature, could shine through even as his righteous anger was displayed. Maybe the protesters would be more effective with a picture of a beautiful baby, beloved from the womb. Could we have even more impact as He uses us to “spread everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him” by pointing to his love and lordship, creative power and ability to sustain?

Reply
BC

January 23, 2009 at 3:34 pm

David – your description of the poor way in which the pictures were being used does make sense. (your description – not the usage you know what I mean) Dialog seems to be the furthest from some people mind on the issue of abortion. It’s like people don’t even know how to sit down at the table and have a rational discussion with someone who holds a different point of view.

Susan – I’m not sure any kind of picture would be effective in creating dialog out of a protest or demonstration. I found your quote interesting and looked it up. The rest of the sentence is difficult to interpret, but I wonder how it applies to the topic at hand, “[God] through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?”

The smell of death AND the fragrance of life. Who is equal indeed?

Reply
jas dye

January 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm

thank you, susan and dave. i concur.

yeah, i do not believe that the battle for the hearts and will of the american people are going to be won at the capital or on the streets. or at least not by the methods that we are currently employing. there should be a point where we say, “here are the victims, here are the lovely creations of God and this is what we are allowing,” but in a more peaceful manner.

i think of when the pro-life movement had originally begun, before it was high-jacked by the religious right (read: evangelicals like me), it was seen as another civil rights issue and one that was fought using the methods of sit-ins and prayer vigils for the loss of life. these were similar non-violent acts of demonstration as those employed by Gandhi and King.

alas, just as many students and black americans were losing faith in the slow and nearly invisible progress of minority rights and their standing w/in society (largely thanks to the view of what justice is in these regards as demonstrated by King’s followers) and decided to take a more up-front (and yet, losing) militant approach, so also were those mistakes made some ten years later in the anti-abortion movement (which soon lost its ties with other ‘life’ issues when it joined w/ backers-of-war).

my point: how we teach is what we teach. and if we want abortion to end, we have to teach it to end.

Reply
stanford

January 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Not sure I can add anything. I was really drawn to the phrase ‘transgress the dignity of those portrayed’ but it is emperically unverifyable. I guess since you (and I) voted for the pro-choice candidate on the questionable and pragmatic grounds that a liberal administration would reduce abortions, might we approach this question the same way. Does the use of these placards reduce the number of abortions? Or is there another criteria that we sould be using and how does that reflect on our vote?

Reply